Dynamic libmap.so

[Frank Warmerdam]

Howard Butler wrote:
> Some questions about the MapServer build process:
> - If MapServer is to have a C API, is it expected that this would be 
> built and linked to applications dynamically?

Howard,

If we had a stable C API to provide to applications then it would be
desirable to have libmap as a shared library that could be easily
replaced.  However, it would not be necessary.

> - Will a dynamic libmap build simplify our MapScript build process? 
> MapServer build process?

I think it would make mapscript building a bit easier because the mapscript
build would not need to be aware of the various linking issues for for
using libmap.  Hmm, actually I'm not sure this is true on all platforms.
It is on linux and windows.

> - Are there performance/memory footprint gains to be had from a dynamic 
> libmap.so?

I'm not too sure about this.

I will say the "shared" target was added as a low-disruption way of my
supporting my desire for FWTools on linux to use a libmap.so without screwing
up the normal builds.  I wouldn't mind moving to always using libmap.so
myself, but it would mean that installing "mapserv" wouldn't be quite as
trivial in some cases.

PS. libmap.so isn't really a very unique name.  We might contemplate something
a bit less likely to conflict with other packages.


Best regards,

-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGF, http://osgeo.org